• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Future of The USA

If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the followin


  • Total voters
    30
And what do you propose the cure is then? (by the way I know you qualified disease with "alleged"... but I know that deep down you know there is a problem)

the problem is too many people who see government taking wealth from others as a solution and too many power hungry turds in office who cater to people who want "something down" in order to gain wealth and power themselves while doing far less than the rich they whine about
 
the problem is too many people who see government taking wealth from others as a solution and too many power hungry turds in office who cater to people who want "something down" in order to gain wealth and power themselves while doing far less than the rich they whine about

But what is the cure to the problem of unequal opportunity at the start of life?
 
But what is the cure to the problem of unequal opportunity at the start of life?

who cares? the government has no business trying to cure that

how are you going to cure athletic genes?

raw intelligence

good looks?


if you want to cure inequality why just limit your crusade to wealthy parents and good schools?

poor but pretty girls have a far better chance of ending up wealthy than ugly ones.

LeBron James had birth advantages most other poor black boys raised by their mothers had.
 
who cares? the government has no business trying to cure that

how are you going to cure athletic genes?

raw intelligence

good looks?


if you want to cure inequality why just limit your crusade to wealthy parents and good schools?

poor but pretty girls have a far better chance of ending up wealthy than ugly ones.

LeBron James had birth advantages most other poor black boys raised by their mothers had.

Well yeah... but there's no interest in changing those advantages... those are natural ones... only interested in weeding out the unnatural advantages... so how do you think crazy progressives or far lefters would go about addressing the problem with unnatural advantages at birth?
 
Well yeah... but there's no interest in changing those advantages... those are natural ones... only interested in weeding out the unnatural advantages... so how do you think crazy progressives or far lefters would go about addressing the problem with unnatural advantages at birth?


Unnatural-that sounds bitter. nothing is more natural than a talented parent wanting to help his or her children. The government doesn't exist to slake the hurt of those who have failed
 
Unnatural-that sounds bitter. nothing is more natural than a talented parent wanting to help his or her children. The government doesn't exist to slake the hurt of those who have failed

Bitter... LOL!!

Seriously though... we all want to help our children... perhaps using money to do so isn't the best way? ? Perhaps teaching values etc is better? ?
 
Bitter... LOL!!

Seriously though... we all want to help our children... perhaps using money to do so isn't the best way? ? Perhaps teaching values etc is better? ?

You assume that one excludes the other

Sorry I think I will fight as hard as possible those who want the government to redistribute income to make the failures feel better. I don't buy into your pie in the sky "its good for society" bs whatsoever. Its even more selfish than those who want to keep what they have
 
You assume that one excludes the other

So tell me how one can use money to help his/her children?

Sorry I think I will fight as hard as possible those who want the government to redistribute income to make the failures feel better. I don't buy into your pie in the sky "its good for society" bs whatsoever. Its even more selfish than those who want to keep what they have

Redistribution? I believe you may be using the right word grammatically, but politically, that word carries a whole lot more baggage than it should for the purposes of this debate. Perhaps new generation redistribution would be a better phrase. Because we are talking about leveling the playing field monetarily for each new generation... not for those who have already had their shot.

Of course, there would be more than simple monetary redistribution... there would be equality of education, equality of nutrition and so on.

Now tell me... how is that selfish?
 
So tell me how one can use money to help his/her children?



Redistribution? I believe you may be using the right word grammatically, but politically, that word carries a whole lot more baggage than it should for the purposes of this debate. Perhaps new generation redistribution would be a better phrase. Because we are talking about leveling the playing field monetarily for each new generation... not for those who have already had their shot.

Of course, there would be more than simple monetary redistribution... there would be equality of education, equality of nutrition and so on.

Now tell me... how is that selfish?

You are-you want others to have their property confiscated to pay for your grandiose dreams

sorry not buying it. you want your kid to have advantages such as top schools or top coaching, pay for it yourself and stop hiding your desires for the wealth of others in flowery social justice facades.
 
Sure it was a little harsh... sometimes reality is...

Sometimes delusional rants are harsh too.

I personally don't think those with overwhelming amounts of wealth are evil by nature... I've posted exactly how I see them in other posts. In summary, they are just humans like everyone else and mostly a victim or their environment

Agree, except... victim?

The way I thought would be to disallow inherited money, or at least minimize it to a certain amount, so long as other children were allowed the same.

I understand some have a philosophical objection to inheritance, but we inherit lots of things from our parents and not all are financial. Some inherit more "assets" than "liabilities," some more "liabilities" than "assets," if you will. Philosophically speaking, why fixate only on financial forms of inheritance, if "fairness" is the name of the game?

In addition, benefits such as going to better schools etc. would not be allow, instead, funding for schools would be allotted equally to all schools.

So parents would theoretically be prohibited from privately paying other individuals to teach their children things?

Parents could decide which schools they want their kids to go to based on that schools performance...

You just said going to better schools is prohibited!

...or simply home school them... etc. there are many ways to make the starting line more even

None of this makes much sense, compared to your comment about the rich being prohibited from educational advantages. How do you let people home-school while disallowing them from paying others to teach their children things?

Of course these types of advantages couldn't be controlled.

You're right, and that ultimately includes your own proposals too.

Remember, we aren't talking about equality of outcome here... simply equality of starting points (or as close as we can get it)... what I feel equality of opportunity should actually refer to

Equality of opportunity is just as impossible as equality of outcome. Every species on Earth naturally produces exceptionally strong specimens and defectively weak ones. It simply cannot be controlled. And the mission to prevent parents from intentionally giving their children competitive advantage is not only irrational and immoral, it defies nature and reality.

There is usually a grain of truth in any argument.

In Prometheus' case a few posts back, certainly no more than a grain.
 
You are-you want others to have their property confiscated to pay for your grandiose dreams

I have to hand it to you TurtleDude, you are very classy with the way you twist and turn arguments... but I'm not buying what you're selling either :)

I think it says something when 53% of the people responding to the OP chose either option B or C, which says that those 53% are at least open to the idea of leveling the playing filed to weed out the unnatural advantages and disadvantages that occur at birth in the U.S. If 53% are open to the idea, its not that grandiose now is it? I know you were trying to use the word grandiose in a negative way, but whats so bad about having grandiose goals for the US so long as we know that we will never attain perfection, but we can always work towards it?

sorry not buying it. you want your kid to have advantages such as top schools or top coaching, pay for it yourself and stop hiding your desires for the wealth of others in flowery social justice facades.

I am arguing a theoretical argument that concerns the general public more than it does me. But something tells me that your desire to personalize arguments, i.e. making accusations and using the word "you" excessively, points to the probability that you are likely very personally attached to the arguments you post here at Debate Politics. For example, it is likely that you want the best for your children too (if you have them). But, who doesn't want the best for their children? There are of course differing levels of emotional attachment to one's argument from debater to debater. How close are you to yours?

But enough of that... perhaps you are saying "pay for it yourself" to the hypothetical stereotyped poor people who desperately want to steal your money so so bad. ... well enough of that too

I really want to know why you feel so adamant about disallowing progress toward a more natural society? ?
 
I have to hand it to you TurtleDude, you are very classy with the way you twist and turn arguments... but I'm not buying what you're selling either :)

I think it says something when 53% of the people responding to the OP chose either option B or C, which says that those 53% are at least open to the idea of leveling the playing filed to weed out the unnatural advantages and disadvantages that occur at birth in the U.S. If 53% are open to the idea, its not that grandiose now is it? I know you were trying to use the word grandiose in a negative way, but whats so bad about having grandiose goals for the US so long as we know that we will never attain perfection, but we can always work towards it?



I am arguing a theoretical argument that concerns the general public more than it does me. But something tells me that your desire to personalize arguments, i.e. making accusations and using the word "you" excessively, points to the probability that you are likely very personally attached to the arguments you post here at Debate Politics. For example, it is likely that you want the best for your children too (if you have them). But, who doesn't want the best for their children? There are of course differing levels of emotional attachment to one's argument from debater to debater. How close are you to yours?

But enough of that... perhaps you are saying "pay for it yourself" to the hypothetical stereotyped poor people who desperately want to steal your money so so bad. ... well enough of that too

I really want to know why you feel so adamant about disallowing progress toward a more natural society? ?

because I support freedom and oppose parasites And most of those who want that crap arent the ones paying for it.

you cavalierly demand that others have their wealth taken from them for your pie in the sky ideals

doesn't work that way. lots of us aren't going to roll over and put up with that crap.
 
Sometimes delusional rants are harsh too.

Lol

Agree, except... victim?

Yes, its not their fault the system is the way it is and thus its not completely their fault that they think the way they do. Nor is it their fault that they are as lonely as they are, or as greedy as they are. It's natural for this to happen. It's lonely at the top.

I understand some have a philosophical objection to inheritance, but we inherit lots of things from our parents and not all are financial. Some inherit more "assets" than "liabilities," some more "liabilities" than "assets," if you will. Philosophically speaking, why fixate only on financial forms of inheritance, if "fairness" is the name of the game?

Do we not want our beloved sports to be played in a fair manner? Why wouldn't we? Of course everyone wants things to be fair. So don't try to pretend that you don't either. We all know life isn't fair, but we all also want it to be.

As far as non-financial related inheritances are concerned... why mess with them? They are natural and that is the goal in my mind. That is, create a society that is as natural as possible, but with as little bloodshed and suffering as possible. I suppose you could call it a less gruesome version of nature. Does that clear things up in terms of why we ought not to fixate on natural inheritances?

So parents would theoretically be prohibited from privately paying other individuals to teach their children things?

Not at all, so long as that financial ability was given to that child's peers :)

You just said going to better schools is prohibited!

I did? Where? Perhaps I worded it wrong? This is the tricky part.... there still needs to be competition right? Or at least that is what I believe, unless we can come up with some other, equally potent motivator. So, schools could still compete, but admission schools could be decided not by finances, but by parents choice and the child's ability to perform at that school's level.

None of this makes much sense, compared to your comment about the rich being prohibited from educational advantages. How do you let people home-school while disallowing them from paying others to teach their children things?

I don't believe I said that they couldn't pay for others to teach their children things... I just said the money spend would have to be equal to their peers - if I didn't say that specifically, I must have made a mistake and my apologies if that is the case

You're right, and that ultimately includes your own proposals too.

So says Neomalthusian... do explain ... ?

Equality of opportunity is just as impossible as equality of outcome. Every species on Earth naturally produces exceptionally strong specimens and defectively weak ones. It simply cannot be controlled. And the mission to prevent parents from intentionally giving their children competitive advantage is not only irrational and immoral, it defies nature and reality.

Except that it is not (at least not in the sense I am talking about). If you think some perfect equality of opportunity is achievable, then you are wrong; it is not. But we can get darn close, at least with the unnatural inheritances. Also remember that it was never a stated goal to "prevent parents from intentionally giving their children competitive advantage"[/I (to use your words). In fact, I am proposing the opposite. I am proposing that all parents have the monetary ability to give their children a competitive advantage. The money would be redistributed to allow for that, so that we would have droves of well informed citizens (remember these people will eventually vote and fight for causes). So, its best to invest in all, not a select few.

In Prometheus' case a few posts back, certainly no more than a grain.

Lol... I'll let that one go :)
 
because I support freedom and oppose parasites And most of those who want that crap arent the ones paying for it.

you cavalierly demand that others have their wealth taken from them for your pie in the sky ideals

doesn't work that way. lots of us aren't going to roll over and put up with that crap.


LMAO - you sound scared :lamo

But in all seriousness, there is nothing to be scared about. This would actually produce a better society, with better citizens; why wouldn't you want that?

No one is demanding anything; instead, simply allowing the natural order of things to present itself again
 
Yes, its not their fault the system is the way it is and thus its not completely their fault that they think the way they do.

Why does that necessarily make them victims?

Nor is it their fault that they are as lonely as they are, or as greedy as they are. It's natural for this to happen. It's lonely at the top.

How do you know (or demonstrate) this is true in general?

Do we not want our beloved sports to be played in a fair manner? Why wouldn't we? Of course everyone wants things to be fair. So don't try to pretend that you don't either. We all know life isn't fair, but we all also want it to be.

Sports are played fair even though it is acknowledged some players are simply better than others. It's fair if fouls are called fairly and rules are enforced evenly. It's not fair to tie Lebron James' shoelaces together just because Mike Bibby is guarding him this play, or because he's been performing too well lately. Fairness is equal enforcement of laws, not government redistribution of resources.

As far as non-financial related inheritances are concerned... why mess with them? They are natural and that is the goal in my mind. That is, create a society that is as natural as possible, but with as little bloodshed and suffering as possible. I suppose you could call it a less gruesome version of nature. Does that clear things up in terms of why we ought not to fixate on natural inheritances?

It didn't need clearing up because I wasn't actually proposing that. I was asking why we are fixating on financial inheritance as a means of inhibiting parents from trying to set their children up for success, when that is only one of many many types of ways parents naturally try to do that.

Father A is a derivatives trader who at one point was worth $30 million but, through a series of bad investments, loses most of it, squanders the rest, and leaves his son with a childhood history of emotional abuse and neglect, a proclivity toward alcoholism, and $2.3 million in inheritance.

Father B makes a very modest salary over the course of his career, teaches his child many valuable skills, gives him plenty of attention, engages him in productive tasks and fosters critical thinking abilities and cultivates a desire to learn, but Father B spends all of his money in end-of-life care, leaving his son with $0.00 of inheritance.

Who really is given the unfair advantage? Why are you so bothered about people inheriting money?

Not at all, so long as that financial ability was given to that child's peers :)

You're not making any sense. I asked why parents couldn't pay people to teach things to their children. It has nothing to do with "giving financial ability" to others.

I did? Where? Perhaps I worded it wrong? This is the tricky part.... there still needs to be competition right? Or at least that is what I believe, unless we can come up with some other, equally potent motivator. So, schools could still compete, but admission schools could be decided not by finances, but by parents choice and the child's ability to perform at that school's level.

You haven't really thought this through. 1) If parents with money can pay qualified others to teach their children, those children are going to tend to be more competitive to have their pick of the best schools. 2) If funding is equal, what are schools really competing for? 3) If the smartest kids can go to the "best" schools, how is it fair to those who are left to go to the worst?

Your idea isn't making any sense.

I don't believe I said that they couldn't pay for others to teach their children things... I just said the money spend would have to be equal to their peers

In no way is this idea enforceable.
 
Why does that necessarily make them victims?

They are victims because of any irrational, unrealistic and unethical thinking etc. they may develop.

How do you know (or demonstrate) this is true in general?

For confidentiality reasons, I cannot share details, but trust me, its not all its cracked up to be at the top and one is always trying to find ways to fill the emptiness, usually with money. Of course this is not the case with everyone, but many suffer from this.

Sports are played fair even though it is acknowledged some players are simply better than others. It's fair if fouls are called fairly and rules are enforced evenly. It's not fair to tie Lebron James' shoelaces together just because Mike Bibby is guarding him this play, or because he's been performing too well lately.

How does the above statement involving Lebron James etc. have anything to do with the following statement? When did we start talking about doing anything to natural inheritances? I believe that is the connection you are trying to make?

Fairness is equal enforcement of laws, not government redistribution of resources.

First of all, in the US, resources are currently redistributed in a somewhat fair manner. But we are not talking about that right now. We are talking about a pool of inherited money that is evenly divided between all new generations, in a manner that allows for equal opportunity to investments, education etc. By definition, that would be fair.

It didn't need clearing up because I wasn't actually proposing that. I was asking why we are fixating on financial inheritance as a means of inhibiting parents from trying to set their children up for success, when that is only one of many many types of ways parents naturally try to do that.

I put the area you are not understanding in bold. We are actually doing the opposite of that. We are enabling all parents to set up their children for success.

Father A is a derivatives trader who at one point was worth $30 million but, through a series of bad investments, loses most of it, squanders the rest, and leaves his son with a childhood history of emotional abuse and neglect, a proclivity toward alcoholism, and $2.3 million in inheritance.

Father B makes a very modest salary over the course of his career, teaches his child many valuable skills, gives him plenty of attention, engages him in productive tasks and fosters critical thinking abilities and cultivates a desire to learn, but Father B spends all of his money in end-of-life care, leaving his son with $0.00 of inheritance.

Who really is given the unfair advantage? Why are you so bothered about people inheriting money?

Your scenario is touching and say volumes about the value of natural inheritance. However, your scenario is not an argument against equal opportunity. This movement I am proposing is not one that attempts to even out the parenting children receive that is not influenced by money (e.g. emotional abuse and neglect versus giving attention and sharing good values). It is one that, as I've mentioned before, levels the playing field in terms of financial inheritance and or advantages.

You're not making any sense. I asked why parents couldn't pay people to teach things to their children. It has nothing to do with "giving financial ability" to others.

I never said parents couldn't pay to teach their children things. This movement is about granting things, not taking them away. We grant all parents the ability to have their children taught whatever their allotment from the pool of equal opportunity inheritance allows. This way all children have an equal opportunity to succeed, via equal monetary investment in education. Does it make sense to you now?

You haven't really thought this through. 1) If parents with money can pay qualified others to teach their children, those children are going to tend to be more competitive to have their pick of the best schools.

The only thing that would make them competitive would be their natural inheritances, because all the other children would have access to the same level of competitive schools.

2) If funding is equal, what are schools really competing for?

This is actually an area that I could use some help in working out the details.

The way I see it, schools would be competing for enrollment (remember inheritance money from each child would be equal). Thus, the more students they enroll, the more money the teachers receive. Of course, each school would have their base allotment from the government. The teachers would have to use their creativity to use that base funding to deliver the service to the children. A certain percentage of the money would go to the teachers and a certain percentage would go back to the government to increase the base payment if needed. It would work something like this. Again, any help in working out these details is appreciated. I am coming up with this part off the top of my head and this part I haven't completely thought through (the specifics of the financial arrangements of the schools). My main initial objective was just focusing on the equalization of monetary inheritance. Again, I would love help working out the other details! :)

3) If the smartest kids can go to the "best" schools, how is it fair to those who are left to go to the worst?

Again, I haven't completely worked out the scholastic part of this. I think this aspect may be good for a new thread. But I am thinking one of two things... 1.) allow the children to try out a school and if they perform well, allow them to continue. 2.) allow the children to go to whatever school they and their parents choose and allow to fail if they can't keep up with the work. Can you think of a third option? Or fourth etc. ?

Your idea isn't making any sense.

Well admittedly, I haven't completely thought the schooling aspect of the idea through yet, but I am sure with teamwork it could be worked out. However, I am very confident in the level the playing field approach and objective. I believe it is the right direction.

In no way is this idea enforceable.

Why wouldn't it be? I would think there are plenty of ways to enforce it, especially if creative minds came together to help. Most people get scared, insecure etc. when a new idea comes along... but every once in a while someone steps up to the plate and contributes :)
 
They are victims because of any irrational, unrealistic and unethical thinking etc. they may develop.

Again, that does not make them victims, and who says they developed any such cognition?

For confidentiality reasons, I cannot share details, but trust me, its not all its cracked up to be at the top and one is always trying to find ways to fill the emptiness, usually with money. Of course this is not the case with everyone, but many suffer from this.

Claims like this beg citation.

How does the above statement involving Lebron James etc. have anything to do with the following statement? When did we start talking about doing anything to natural inheritances? I believe that is the connection you are trying to make?

You brought up sports, and fairness in sports is about even application of rules, not making sure each team is equally good at the sport before the game starts. We started talking about non-financial inheritance because I suspected you would recognize that it doesn't make sense to try to undermine people who inherit non-financial advantages from their parents. Unfortunately you're still fixated on undermining financial advantages some parents give to their children. If you don't want some kids to have an advantage over others, why fixate on only the cash advantages?
 
Again, that does not make them victims, and who says they developed any such cognition?

Its just what happens. Its not a bad thing, its just reality.

Claims like this beg citation.

Perhaps when I have time, I will dig up some old research papers that show this, but for now I am just talking from experience

You brought up sports, and fairness in sports is about even application of rules, not making sure each team is equally good at the sport before the game starts.

This is true. Indeed, I have no intention of making sure everyone is equal in terms of natural inheritance; not only would that be counterproductive, it would also be impossible (unless we start making clones of course, lol!!). I'll say it again, the focus here is on leveling the playing field as it relates to monetary influence. My analogy was meant to reflect the following: when we watch people race in the Olympics, for example, we wouldn't want the racers to start at different starting lines right? But of course we can't, nor shouldn't do anything about their natural inheritance/advantages, i.e. being faster than other racers.

We started talking about non-financial inheritance because I suspected you would recognize that it doesn't make sense to try to undermine people who inherit non-financial advantages from their parents.

That's right and we agree that natural inheritance (or non-financial inheritance as it seems you've chosen to call it) shouldn't nor could not be made equal.

Unfortunately you're still fixated on undermining financial advantages some parents give to their children. If you don't want some kids to have an advantage over others, why fixate on only the cash advantages?

LOL!! Like a dog on a bone. You remind me of me!! Its not fixating my friend... its just the nature of the movement... its the fair thing to do; this point is illuminated in the above racing analogy.

Not interested in helping to work out the bugs associated with schools? Or are we in agreement that that would be best saved for another post?
 
I voted for option A.

It basically says that USA is leading superpower, votes are leaned towards the rich that mostly contribute with taxes, and limits access to education and access to healthcare to the ones that have not. Basically to hell with the people as long as the rich stay rich and USA is no 1 (how this can stand in itself is a question, but moving on).

Now I am not saying that I voted for this because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages because I am not an American (thereby the disadvantages do not strike me, I continue having access to healthcare and education, while you do not). What I am saying is that the disadvantages could be mitigated for Americans could find free access to healthcare and especially education here in Europe instead.

I hear that public university in Deutchland is free and some Americans study there. This while if they had chosen to study in Suomiland they would pay Americans to study there instead. Thus you would have the best of both worlds and what is best the two USA & EU would get to commune more with its people.
 
LMAO - you sound scared :lamo

But in all seriousness, there is nothing to be scared about. This would actually produce a better society, with better citizens; why wouldn't you want that?

No one is demanding anything; instead, simply allowing the natural order of things to present itself again

Ah, no. That is, in fact, rather the opposite of what you are seeking here. The natural order of things is for competition to create winners and losers, and for winners to pass on advantage to their offspring. You are trying to mitigate or obviate the "natural order of things".
 
I voted for option A.

It basically says that USA is leading superpower, votes are leaned towards the rich that mostly contribute with taxes, and limits access to education and access to healthcare to the ones that have not. Basically to hell with the people as long as the rich stay rich and USA is no 1 (how this can stand in itself is a question, but moving on).

So just to verify, you chose the following course for the USA?

Option A:
Being number one in the world economy.

Increasing the current disadvantage of those born into poor families.

No free access to healthcare.

No free access to any level of education.

No food and shelter safety nets.

Being number one in military power.

Voting power is decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes.


Why so? Why do you think it is so beneficial for the US for it to be the #1 economy and military power over all other concerns?

Now I am not saying that I voted for this because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages because I am not an American (thereby the disadvantages do not strike me, I continue having access to healthcare and education, while you do not). What I am saying is that the disadvantages could be mitigated for Americans could find free access to healthcare and especially education here in Europe instead.

How would that work? Then they wouldn't be Americans anymore, lol. They'd be Europeans... right?

I hear that public university in Deutchland is free and some Americans study there. This while if they had chosen to study in Suomiland they would pay Americans to study there instead. Thus you would have the best of both worlds and what is best the two USA & EU would get to commune more with its people.

Seriously! They pay for this! You've gotta send me a link or something. But again it seems like you are advocating for American citizens to move to Europe. Why is that?
 
Ah, no. That is, in fact, rather the opposite of what you are seeking here. The natural order of things is for competition to create winners and losers, and for winners to pass on advantage to their offspring. You are trying to mitigate or obviate the "natural order of things".

If you read my previous posts you'd understand. I am all for winners and losers. In fact I have used the analogy of a race where all racers start from the same starting line and when the race is over, we have winners, runners up, losers etc. Competition is a great and natural phenomenon, a great motivator and a great pathway to creativity and progress.

When I refer to natural versus unnatural, I am referring to the innate versus the material. I'll have to did up the full explanation from an older post, but essentially, monetary inheritance is an unnatural inheritance/advantage, while non-monetary innate (biology) and familial (parenting) inheritance is a natural inheritance.

The goal then is to allow things to unfold naturally for our children, by leaving natural inheritance alone and redistributing unnatural inheritance to all peers in that generation, allowing for equality of education, equality of investments etc.

This way, we can observe and enjoy the unfolding life events that are unadulterated by would be disproportionate unnatural inheritance that would place each child at a different life race starting point. This would fix many problems that wouldn't naturally occur if it weren't for the artificiality of money. For a full explanation of the artificiality of money, especially the way in which it artificially creates wealth, that is unnatural in nature, I can dig a more thorough explanation out of some of my posts.
 
So just to verify, you chose the following course for the USA?

Option A:
Being number one in the world economy.

Increasing the current disadvantage of those born into poor families.

No free access to healthcare.

No free access to any level of education.

No food and shelter safety nets.

Being number one in military power.

Voting power is decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes.


Why so? Why do you think it is so beneficial for the US for it to be the #1 economy and military power over all other concerns?

Two reasons. First, when one falls from 1st place they usually are kicked down. Other challengers whom USA has mingled with (some of may be outraged) would be jumping from joy to see USA fall, and might do a lot to get there.

Secondly, if USA falls it may have influence on its allies also. So it is not only about USA but it is about its allies whom may pay the same price as USA (if not worse). Examples of such allies I think is Israel and perhaps Dardania also.

So USA should stay 1st, but I was not alright with the disadvantages of your proposed options. I offered solutions to them.

How would that work? Then they wouldn't be Americans anymore, lol. They'd be Europeans... right?

No. The Americans that I saw that were studying in Deutchland were still Americans. The Americans that teach in Dardania are still Americans. The point is take your free (or vary available) education and go back contributing to USA being No 1. Not be European in Europe, but be European in USA instead.

Seriously! They pay for this! You've gotta send me a link or something.

Yes people in Suomiland pay you to study instead. This is what a friend in Suomiland told me. Plus I saw in a Turkish documentary about this. But you do not pay for master's, and doctoral courses, for sure:

Study In Finland - Tuition and Scholarships

But again it seems like you are advocating for American citizens to move to Europe. Why is that?

Just trying to help them out with your economy and military VS (strangely!) health and education ethical dilemmas. Alternatively I sure would love to see some new faces like more from northern and west Europe (away from Balkan countries) and especially from USA around here.
 
If you read my previous posts you'd understand. I am all for winners and losers.

It seems not, as you wish to constantly restart the race under the theory that some are winning too much.

In fact I have used the analogy of a race where all racers start from the same starting line and when the race is over, we have winners, runners up, losers etc. Competition is a great and natural phenomenon, a great motivator and a great pathway to creativity and progress.

When I refer to natural versus unnatural, I am referring to the innate versus the material. I'll have to did up the full explanation from an older post, but essentially, monetary inheritance is an unnatural inheritance/advantage, while non-monetary innate (biology) and familial (parenting) inheritance is a natural inheritance.

On the contrary, there is no particular distinction between monetary inheritance and other forms of inheritance (such as what you seem to call "familial"). One is not any less natural than the other, and the desire to start over and remake the human race anew is a failed fantasy of bloody ideologies precisely because it so poorly correlates to the natural order of things.

This way, we can observe and enjoy the unfolding life events that are unadulterated by would be disproportionate unnatural inheritance that would place each child at a different life race starting point. This would fix many problems that wouldn't naturally occur if it weren't for the artificiality of money. For a full explanation of the artificiality of money, especially the way in which it artificially creates wealth, that is unnatural in nature, I can dig a more thorough explanation out of some of my posts.

We are discussing (ultimately) the passing on of the fruits of production. Whether done so in the form of M1, a farm, education, personal attention from the parent as a child during time not devoted to labor it is all that which we (naturally) pass on to our children to give them the greatest advantage possible.
 
It seems not, as you wish to constantly restart the race under the theory that some are winning too much.

Who said anything about restarting a race?

On the contrary, there is no particular distinction between monetary inheritance and other forms of inheritance (such as what you seem to call "familial").

So says cpwill

One is not any less natural than the other

OK, I suppose I will have to spell it out for you. Do understand this, first you have to understand how money (and other non-perishable valuables such as silver and gold; for the purpose of this argument, we will just refer to them all as money) creates inflated wealth/power differentials. Without money, it would not be possible for individuals to hoard the kind of wealth that we see hoarded today. Indeed, people could only hoard no more than what they could make use of. There are many advantages to using money that make it more practical than simply trading perishable goods. However, the inflated wealth/power that occurs between the citizens as a result of the use of money is a negative side effect that needs to be accounted for.

In the long run, without accounting for this side effect, only a few families would own all the wealth (if citizens did not revolt by that time) and everyone else would essentially become indentured servants, exploited and any wealth they would accrue would be at the mercy of those that hold the wealth. When compared to other organisms that compete with each other, there would be no comparable situation in nature. This is because in nature, without money, families rise and fall according to each generations natural skills. In nature, money is not needed for competition (and it does not exist anyway) and skill (i.e. extent to which each individual is able to adapt to its environment) determines an organisms wealth/power.

In the US, we use the principles of evolution in economics and in social policy. That is we use capitalism. Capitalism allows competition, which is a good thing as it keeps products and services competitive. It also has a natural system of rewards and consequences that helps guide human behavior, keeping it productive and competitive. We all should understand these concepts by now, so I will not explain this further.

As mentioned, problems arise when we use money; we've already covered how it created artificial/inflated wealth differentials. Without keeping our capitalistic system (that uses money; which we've already discovered has its negative side effects) in check, it also deviates from the natural evolutionary process that capitalism is modeled after. Why you may ask? Because while it works for competition within one generation, it begins to fail as the next generations take over. This is due to inherited monetary wealth. In essence, it doesn't allow for the individual's natural endowments to be tested in the capitalistic system. Instead, it places the individuals of each new generation at artificial (unnatural) starting points. It does not allow for the individual's natural skills and the non-monetary based (natural) parenting that may modify those skills (lets call these collectively natural inheritances) to be tested and given a value. Instead, artificial or unnatural (the terms artificial and unnatural are used interchangeably) inheritances place individuals at different levels depending on the values of their artificial inheritance, disallowing the individuals natural inheritances to be testing and given a value in the most pure form possible. So to summarize in simple terms, capitalism without correction for artificial wealth/power accumulation and without correcting for artificial inheritances for new generations, fails to perform its intended function.

Thus, new generations to not have the opportunity to experience their full value due to artificial inheritances. Does this help cpwill?

the desire to start over and remake the human race anew is a failed fantasy of bloody ideologies precisely because it so poorly correlates to the natural order of things.

Who said anything about starting and remaking the human race anew? Some who do not understand the concepts may see it that way, but its not intending to do that at all. Instead, its intent is to simply allow our market and each new generation to benefit from both individual realization of natural value and collective realization of the results of a purer capitalistic market. Purer meaning that it would be more analogous to what we observe in species competition in nature.

We are discussing (ultimately) the passing on of the fruits of production. Whether done so in the form of M1, a farm, education, personal attention from the parent as a child during time not devoted to labor it is all that which we (naturally) pass on to our children to give them the greatest advantage possible.

Of course we want to pass on what we've learned to our children. We want to pass on our genes to our children. We want to pass on good parenting to our children and so on. These non-monetary inheritances are all natural inheritances. What we don't want to do is give our children an artificial inheritance that does not allow them to experience their full value. Not to mention that just as we like to see who wins from a race so long as they all start at the same starting line, we also want to see how well our new generations do without starting them on different starting lines. We want the to succeed because of their own skill and because of our dutiful parenting and passing on of values etc. If we did anything else (i.e. if we gave some artificial inheritances to some and not others) they would feel like they cheated and deep in our hearts, we would know that we helped them cheat. Not to mention how unfair it must feel to those who are on the receiving end of this cheating. Yes cpwill, we want to "pass on to our children to give them the greatest advantage possible", but we want to do it without cheating; we want to do it in a pure fashion.

This post is not to pass judgement on people who have engaged in such cheating, but to point out what it really is. Those who feel like they are being judged should not, because all you have to do is agree that the system needs to be fixed in the way I have been describing and we can make the whole debacle go away. If you feel like you have cheated deep inside, don't beat yourself up. Remember, there are many things our forefathers did not completely grasp and there are many things that were done that were wrong by our forefathers. But we should not pay for the sins of our fathers; instead, we should fix the system today, as we know there are problems. Fear, anger, shame and defensiveness are all poisonous emotions and we should act quickly to notice that they exist within us and push them out. Nothing hurts society more than these things (except perhaps unchecked greed, lol).
 
Back
Top Bottom